The Intermediate Place of People According to the Bible

I finished reading though Professor McKay's book The Bond of Love, and would recommend reading it if you already have a good grasp of systematic theology and want to read a book that can make connections between all the different parts of the Bible and help you reach some conclusions.

I've have already referred to Professor McKay's work about Theonomy in an earlier post. For this post, however, I'm going to share a bit about McKay's insights into the state between death and the resurrection.

Prof. McKay is handling the subject in the midst of chapter 11, which is about The Final Triumph, under the section titled of Death and Beyond on pages 285 - 286.

McKay makes a distinction between the Bible being chiefly concerned with the state of people after death; but, that for these two pages he will address the location of people after death. McKay cautions that there is very little from the Scriptures that we can say about this topic, but that hasn't stopped Christians and non-Christians from talking about the issue.

For example, consider the Philadelphia Cream Cheese ads that play off of a relationship between multiple people who died and what their life is like after they become angels:

Star Wars also deals with the after life in Return of the Jedi:

In Christian circles recently, we also have books like Heaven is for Real, which is more about a near-death experience but is telling us about heaven nonetheless, and older works like Dante's The Comedy. Clive James new translation is the most accessible in my opinion.

The Roman Communion speaks and teaches about Purgatory in paragraphs 1030 - 1032 for "[a]ll who die in God's grace and friendship ..." in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), but the Scriptures don't speak that way about the intermediate state, and the reason why Purgatory makes sense within the Roman Communion is because the Roman Catholic Church denies the active obedience of Christ for believers.

One place McKay points us to is Revelation 6:9-10 which says:

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. They cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

McKay points out that the setting for the souls under the alter is in heaven in God's presence. He then gets into a brief overview of the debated meanings about the Hebrew word Sheol and the Greek word Hades which both apply to the place of the dead.

In terms of Sheol, McKay seems to suggest that its the realm of death, a state with separate places for the ones who Christ has made righteous and the unrighteous. The unrighteous should fear entering Sheol (Psalm 73:27), but the righteous should have confidence that through death they will be with the Lord (Psalm 73:24). Sheol is not a 'geographical' place, and not an underworld.

When considering Hades, the debate does not stop. Luke 16:19-31, would indicate that Hades can refer to intermediate place of punishment for the wicked, in terms of the rich man. However, it also seems to refer to the state of death or grave in Acts 2:27:

For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption.

Along with Acts 2:31:

... he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

Therefore, some diversity in meaning must be allowed.

In conclusion, though, the Scriptures are clear that there is no break in covenant fellowship between God and his people and as pointed out last week both the righteous and the unrighteous are waiting for the final reckoning spoken of, by Christ, in Matthew 25:31 - 46. The WCF in 33.1 - 3 speaks of that day in the following way:

God has appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil. The end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of His mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of His justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.

Theonomy vs. the Westminster Confession of Faith

For the past seven weeks I have been reading David McKay's book The Bond of Love, which I would recommend for anybody who's thinking of going to seminary or just wants to know how the Bible fits together. Today I reached Chapter 8 which is about The Way of Holiness. The last section pages 190 - 193 is about the law and society and talks about Theonomy and questions if its teachings are scriptural and confessional.

Professor McKay says "No!" to Theonomy and helpfully shows how a Theonomic interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith 19.4 makes that section have no actual meaning in a chapter end note numbered 60 on page 196. Professor McKay writes,

Theonomists who appeal to the Confession tend to interpret 'general equity' in such a way (i.e. embracing the detail of the laws) that they in effect reverse the Confession's statements about the laws having 'expired' and their 'not obligating any'.

The Confession says at 19.4,

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

So what is Professor McKay actually suggesting in his end note? Well here's how we should read the section if Theonomists had their way (according to McKay):

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which though they expired together with the State of that people; the general equity thereof requires obligation of all.

The changed words are in italics, and the meaning of this altered WCF is clearly different than what the Confession actually says. Though what's not so clear is why section four would have existed if the writers were Theonomic? I'll get into the question of if Theonomy is biblical in a later series of posts, but my point for this post is to ask if it's what the RPCNA, or any other church confessing the Westminster Standards actually clearly teaches or can allow? My argument, and the argument of Professor McKay, is an emphatic, "NO!"

Furthermore, over at The Confessional Outhouse, they have a helpful post (Doing Justice to Equity), which suggests the following change to WCF 19.4 as faithful to the original intent of the Standards,

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the Natural Law thereof may require.

Now I realize the phrase "Natural Law" is can be a bit tricky to figure out. I also don't want to leave the impression that I agree with everything that's promoted at The Confessional Outhouse, but if we could agree that by the phrase "natural law" we mean only the Ten Commandments, also called the moral law (WCF 19.3, WLC Q. 93), and don't confuse the Ten Commandments with the Covenant of Works either, which was added to the moral law (WCF 4.2), we have pretty clear modern statement.

Sinclair Ferguson in his chapter, "An Assembly of Theonomists? The Teaching of the Westminster Divines on the Law of God" published in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, on page 330 offers a slightly different rewording of 19.4 than McKay which is also helpful:

The Mosaic law has actually expired minimally: it remains obligatory and must be applied maximally.

I'm looking forward to having a book review series on Theonomy: A Reformed Critique soon, but it is interesting to note the publication date is 1990. Therefore, for at least over 20 years Ferguson has argued that it would be more honest to modify the Confession and hold to Theonomy than to have a secret meaning to 19.4 and then have to explain what the Confession "actually" must mean.
 
I am suggesting is that the term "general equity" had a long social context which, at least in America, is not easily understood currently. I actually plan to address the term "general equity" in a later post, but for now my best suggestion on understanding section four is,

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the moral law thereof may require.

This suggestion actually keeps all the terms within the confession because section three defines the moral law. Thanks must go to my dad, Chris Stockwell, for reminding me about how Professor McKay's chapter end note exactly changes the wording of WCF 19.4.